Author
Topic: Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 (MkI) (Read 36073 times)

This was taken with the mkI version I have had since 1990 when I was shooting with an EOS 630. This image was taken with my 5D @ f10 1/640 100-ISO. I own the following standard primes:

Canon 50mm f1.8 mkI

Nikon f1.4 (1964)

Pentax f1.8 (m42)

Contax f1.4

Olympus f3.5 (macro)

The Canon is solid and give good results. The Nikon is sharpest overall, while the Contax is sharpest in the center. I have not had the Olympus very long but what I have shot with it looks crazy sharp - perhaps the sharpest of them all -- the downside of course is the f3.5 -- but for macro work it is really sweet. If you can get one, I would suggest getting the mkI Canon f1.8. I think it is just as sharp if not better and the build quality is similar to the f1.4 and does not feel like it will break if you breath on it. The mkII is cheap and replaceable. For the price it's hard to beat even if soft at the edges wide open.

aptem59

The 50 1.8 is inexpensive, but low contrast and a bit soft until at least f4. That makes it underwhelming in low light, and loses my interest for most situations, so I rarely use mine. The focus ring is terrible, and the rough bokeh will spoil an otherwise decent image.

If you have a nice camera, you'll get more satisfying results with a better lens. Even in low light I'll use the 16-35 2.8II or 85 1.8 before the 50 1.8. The 50 1.4 is worth the extra IMHO.

True, but the lens has to stay in one piece and then eventually focus on something.

I had a 50 1.8 for several months. Bought it just for the hell of it (and to have a slightly more automatic alternative to the almost-impossible-to-focus vintage Takumar 50 1.4 I usually use). It's a much better lens than people give it credit for, though build quality, quick focus, and noiseless operation are not its strong points. Its upgrade, the Canon 50 1.4, is not nearly as much better as people are trying to say. I've seen the focus mechanism completely destroyed just from a minor front impact on the 1.4. Still, I had the front half of my 1.8 completely knocked off when someone barreled into me while carrying a light stand. With the help of a little super glue, it snapped right together again. The image quality wasn't absolutely -perfect-, but any issues it did have were not noticeable, save for some very slight G/P edge fringing in two of the corners which changed based on focus (rotating elements). I got hundreds of shots out of it afterwards, even after gluing it together at least 5 more times from various collisions. This is expected, as I do not baby my equipment.

You can argue, regarding unbroken copies of course, about microscopic fringing, edge sharpness, or the particular way the bokeh has chromatic aberrations in its little circles/hexagons, or whatever other BS the pixel peepers try to pull to justify spending 6000 bucks on Zeiss lenses if you want (don't get me wrong, I know it's nice glass).

However, at the end of the day this lens looks damn good when used by a sufficiently skilled photographer. The main reason I don't use it anymore, or at least have some of the mechanisms frankensteined for another project, is that I lost it at a gig after sitting it down during a rock concert. Their producer eventually selected the picture I took with the broken superglue lens to be the album cover, so minor aberrations obviously don't matter that much if the picture is a good one.

One last thing: In my experience, a plastic barreled lens such as the 50 when attached to your camera is less than likely to gouge a rather ridiculous amount of flesh from your shin if the camera happens to fall from a table onto your leg. The Takumar leaves scars your grandkids will see. This is, of course, because the Takumar is much sharper at the edges.

elmo2006

...for the 100 smacks or more that this little guy can be had for, who can really complain. Sure it's a little rough around edges, but who really cares but alas I sold mine as my new 70-200 MII is literally glued to the body - Cheers

I love this lens, not least because it only cost me â‚¬90. Compare it to the 50 1.4, or the 35f2, 28f2.8 etc, but i wouldn't have bought them anyway, i only got my niftyfifty because it was so cheap.

Here's a nice bunch of flowers, 7D, iso100, 1/200s, f2, on the carpet with the sun coming through the glass doors open behind me (hence the shadow on the left). I don't think it's soft even at f2, nor lacking contrast. this is the camera jpg, no raw or enhancements at all (except 4:3 cropping and shrinkage for web)And a 100% crop. It's sharp enough for me, and definitely sharp enough for â‚¬90...